|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 58 of 326:
| 
Apr 25 17:31 UTC 2000 |
I had a great time watching End of Days. I laughed all the way through it.
It's probably one of Arnold's better performances.
Note that nowhere above do I claim it's a good movie. :)
|
mooncat
|
|
response 59 of 326:
|
Apr 25 17:54 UTC 2000 |
I just liked seeing Gabriel Byrne as the devil as someone viewing it
said "My man is smooth!" <laughs> He really made the movie for me.
Arnold... eh... he wasn't bad. Oh... but his sidekick- that guy was
funny as hell.
|
drew
|
|
response 60 of 326:
|
Apr 25 20:15 UTC 2000 |
Re #53: (Romeo Must Die)
I thought that Romeo had *already* died!
|
mooncat
|
|
response 61 of 326:
|
Apr 25 20:50 UTC 2000 |
Re #60- He has, everytime someone performs "Romeo and Juliet" however,
this is a different movie... <grins> It doesn't take place in Verona.
I didn't come up with the name, somebody else did. ;)
|
otaking
|
|
response 62 of 326:
|
Apr 25 20:55 UTC 2000 |
I have to agree that Godfather III was the weakest movie of the trilogy.
Although it was still enjoyable, it was released too many years after the
first two films. Plus, Coppola put his annoying daughter in the film.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 63 of 326:
|
Apr 26 00:57 UTC 2000 |
Oops, next Tuesday I guess.
|
gull
|
|
response 64 of 326:
|
Apr 26 01:30 UTC 2000 |
Has anyone seen _The Skulls_? Is it worth watching?
|
janc
|
|
response 65 of 326:
|
Apr 26 01:54 UTC 2000 |
I know nothing at all about the movie, but the phrase "Romeo must die"
seems to me a reference to the old theory that for Romeo and Juliet to
become immortal symbols of perfect love, it was necessary for them to
die young rather than to grow old and flabby together. Just like it was
dramatically necessary to kill off the hero in Titanic. Thus "Romeo
must die" is more of a story-teller's slogan than an assasin's. Whether
this has anything to do with the movie, I couldn't say.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 66 of 326:
|
Apr 26 03:42 UTC 2000 |
Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. The link to Romeo and Juliet is pretty
weak any way you slice it.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 67 of 326:
|
Apr 26 12:48 UTC 2000 |
Well, yeah. <grins> But it's still rather entertaining. More one of
the characters in the movie makes the link, verbally, once saying
something along the lines of "Romeo, you gotta die" while aiming a gun
at him. <shrugs>
|
jazz
|
|
response 68 of 326:
|
Apr 26 14:39 UTC 2000 |
I'm not sure whether his brother's name was "Po" or "Poe" - the latter
would fit more closely with naming one's son "Romeo".
|
mooncat
|
|
response 69 of 326:
|
Apr 26 18:02 UTC 2000 |
I think I saw in the credits that it was spelled Po, and Jet Li's
character was Han (or Akhbar depending. ;) )
|
jazz
|
|
response 70 of 326:
|
Apr 26 20:28 UTC 2000 |
But they did call him "Romeo". Perhaps he had a thing for the ladies?
|
mooncat
|
|
response 71 of 326:
|
Apr 26 22:42 UTC 2000 |
Well... one...
|
scott
|
|
response 72 of 326:
|
Apr 29 13:29 UTC 2000 |
Saw "U-571" last night.
Great visuals, but a few niggling problems with the plot and the technical
details.
And is Harvey Keitel the new Ernest Borgnine?
|
fitz
|
|
response 73 of 326:
|
May 1 21:27 UTC 2000 |
Re Harvey Keitel: I thought too that he seems to be getting type cast into
crusty, voice-of-experience roles. I hope not. He has done some wide ranging
parts in his career. Remember tThe Piano?
I saw U-571 and rate it a B-. I enjoyed it much the same way I enjoyed
Twister and I recommend it for watching on the big screen. I don't think that
it will will be as enjoyable on tape. I appreciated the carnage: That is,
the great loss of life was just because people were trying to do their jobs
under circumstances of dire threat. Few of the deaths were heroic in the
sense of the fatality occurring during the performance of superogatory acts.
Most died because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It didn't
even matter if the character was likable or not.
I saw it at matinee lprices and got more than my money's worth.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 74 of 326:
|
May 2 07:15 UTC 2000 |
Having not seen the flick nor read the book (yet. I bought it
yesterday) I stll have a question about the plot. From what I
understand the 'mission' is to capture a german u-boat in order to steal
the 'enigma' machine. Seeing as how the US and Britian not only already
had more than one and were rather routinely reading german (and japanese
non-enigma based) coded transmissions what was the point? Are we
supposed to pretend we don't know history and pretend that if we didn't
already have one, this would have been a neato way to go about getting
one? (I shall probably still go see it, though at a matinee...)
|
scott
|
|
response 75 of 326:
|
May 2 11:19 UTC 2000 |
It's semi-true. The German navy did in fact start using an advanced model
of Enigma with 4 code wheels instead of the usual 3. And they did have the
correct model in the film, which was neat to see (if you're ever in the
Baltimore area you can visit the NSA museum and play with a real Enigma).
The #1 plot problem doesn't seem to include any real spoilers, so here goes:
1. "We can't break their new codes, so we need to steal a code machine".
2. (Later in the same movie) "If the Germans find out we've tried to steal
one of their code machines, they'll change all their codes".
OK, so who cares if the Germans change codes when we supposedly couldn't read
them anyway?
|
otaking
|
|
response 76 of 326:
|
May 2 14:56 UTC 2000 |
It's harder to break a code if you have to start form scratch. Changing the
codes would mean all of their current research would be useless.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 77 of 326:
|
May 3 05:00 UTC 2000 |
Hmmph. From what I remember Bletchley Park and the Letchworth
facilities used 'bombe's -mechanical devices designed by Turing (of the
'Turing test')- to break the codes, including a 4 wheel 'bombe', not an
Enigma machine itself. I seem to recall reading that it was merely the
realization that the german navy had started to use a 4th wheel that
allowed for the 4wheel version - didn't mean somebody had to steal one.
I also seem to recall the Poles in the 1930s had cracked the Enigma
coding system without ever having seen the machine itself.
|
mdw
|
|
response 78 of 326:
|
May 3 07:01 UTC 2000 |
So are you arguing the poles were smart and the english stupid or what?
Breaking a cryptography system isn't just a question of being smart.
It's also a combination of time, luck, and persistance, and once it's
broken, there's the even more dangerous question of how to use the
resulting intelligence. The poles evidently weren't able to make
effective use of whatever they learned; they went from being at peace
and having the leisure to break things as a peace time exercise, to
being a conquered country with no infrastructure to speak of, in
something like 24 hours time. The british had considerable advance
warning, every reason and interest to break the code, & would have been
under considerable time pressure to break any new advances in code as
quickly as possible. One of the reasons they needed that intelligence
was to be able to break the german naval blockade of england, because
that's how they were getting supplies. Fighting a war is not about
elegance or "playing fair", it's a dirty game. So even if they didn't
"really" need the 4-wheel version, even if it was cheating, it still
makes perfect sense they would try to steal one anyways, because they
couldn't really afford any interruption in intelligence.
It's really quite fascinating to compare this to the german and
japanese. Both also had their cryptographers trying to break the
systems used by allied forces, but without nearly as much success. In
fact, by the end of the war, the americans at least were using a system
something like enigma (only more complicated), which was never seriously
attacked by the germans. When the allied forces used intelligence
gained from breaking axis codes, they were always very careful to
disguise the true source of their intelligence. The rule was always
that if there *wasn't* any reasonable "false" explanation for the
germans to believe, the intelligence could not be used. The official
german theory appears to have been that enigma was unbreakable and the
allied successes must have been pure luck. After all, there was always
a "convenient" explanation about how the allied forces might have
discovered whatever they knew. Some germans didn't buy this theory, and
in fact the 4 wheel enigma was devised & put out in the field because of
this suspicion. When the new 4 wheel version didn't change anything
(because the allied forces were able to break it so quickly) it was
officially concluded that the allied forces couldn't have broken the
code because the new version didn't make any difference.
The germans, of course, invented our modern notion of "military"
discipline. They opened a training school for military officers in the
mid 19th century which replaced what had essentially been an
"apprenticeship" program which is how military officers had been trained
since the romans. The german system was quickly copied by everyone,
including the US - our version of the german training school is called
West Point. The original theory being a training school is, by training
all officers the same way, they would learn to think alike, and so
military commanders could learn to expect consistent and dependable
results from whatever officer happened to be in charge, thus freeing the
leadership to think about how and what, and not about who. There is in
fact some truth to this theory; a study of US military history from the
revolutionary war through the civil war will show inconsistent results
from many officers, which all too often resulted in unpleasant and bad
surprises for US military leaders. The result of that "consistent"
thinking meant that when things went well for the germans, they went
*very* well, as in the blitzkreigs in the early part of world war 2.
This tactic was not actually invented by the germans, it was copied
from, of all people, general Jackson in the union army during the civil
war. When things went badly for the germans, since they all thought
nearly alike and had been trained to work and think as a hierarchy, it
was difficult for them to understand or emulate the "good luck" of the
british.
Japan, when it copied western armies and technology, also copied the
german military officer training academy. They also, of course,
"perfected it", which was not hard since it was already a very good fit
with japanese society and cultural mores. If a german officer might
occasionally have an original idea and random flights of creative
thought, the japanese officer was very careful not to displace the least
evidence of this. The japanese apparently *never* had any real idea
that allied forces might be reading any of their codes, not even after
allied forces essentially assasinated one of their admirals who was
"unlucky" enough to be spotted by a solitary allied observation plane
that had somehow wandered way out of any rational area where it ought to
be.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 79 of 326:
|
May 3 08:15 UTC 2000 |
I was arguing that the mission portrayed in the film being discussed was
a major plot hole, and having now read the 'novel' based on the screen
play I am even more inclined to wait to buy the movie on 'pre-owned'
discount at OSCO rather than pay to view it in a theatre.
The germans probably had no serious consideration that their Enigma
system was being read (with far more ease than the Japanese in fact) due
to ego. The japanese on the other hand knew full well at a low level
that the japanese codes were being read and the shootdown of Yamamoto
you alude to was only the prime example thereof, its just that by
culture those who knew (and were rather adept themselves at breaking the
US codes) could not dare to suggest up the chain of command that their
superior's choice of codes and decision to continue to use same were
flawed.
Oddly enough, the difficulties with the japanese codes were not so much
technical (the german codes were technically superior) but in
interpretng the meanings of the deciphered messages. For example, on
the surface the decrypted messages that contained the very specific
'bitchings' of a lowly Lt-Commander about vastly superior ranking
officers might have been dismissed as a 'gripe session' - as it would
have been had it been an US officer of similar rank. instead the signal
analysis folk recognized the name and social standing of the officer and
realized that he was in fact detailing specific criticism leading to
replacement of officers that were in fact his social inferiors, and thus
due in part Guadacanal remained in US hands and the japanese ultimately
defeated. 'From such little seeds...'
Anyway, the U-thing movie is a box office hit, but still a stinker. Pay
for matinee if you insist, but my take is to wait for cheap pre-owned or
pirate video - you won't miss anything and you'll save money.
|
scott
|
|
response 80 of 326:
|
May 3 11:15 UTC 2000 |
Well, if you have the Home Theater rig. This is the sort of movie you want
to see on the big screen with the big sound system. Watching on a small
screen you'll have to rely on the plot in order to enjoy it. Not a good
strategy. ;)
|
lowclass
|
|
response 81 of 326:
|
May 3 13:51 UTC 2000 |
As for the enigma machine, Allied forces in the European
theatre knew from intercepted and decoded messages several times of the
placement and evailability of reserve forces held against or planned attacks.
they sent OUR troups in anyway, knowing the unused information would cost us
dearly in the way of casualties. DOing so was "evidence" to the Axis forces
that their cryptographic methods were still onbroken. THe same methods were
used in the WWII pacific battle theatre as well.
Something to remember come Memorial Day...
|
jep
|
|
response 82 of 326:
|
May 4 19:24 UTC 2000 |
What's your point? Should our government and military leaders always do
anything they can to save lives in the shortest possible term, even if
they know they will cost more lives and other goals (such as victory) in
the long term?
|
